Statute Details
- Title: Pingat Perkhidmatan Anggota Beruniform Malaysia (The Uniformed Services Malaysia Medal) Rules 1964
- Act Code: S142-1964
- Type: Subsidiary legislation / Rules (sl)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per the legislation portal)
- Enacting authority: “The Yang di-Pertuan Negara hereby makes the following Rules”
- Made date: 7 September 1964
- Commencement: Not explicitly stated in the extract; the rules were made on 7 September 1964 and later amended by S 377/1999 (effective 1 September 1999)
- Key provisions highlighted: Rule 2 (eligibility), Rule 4 (design and wearing), Rule 5 (register), Rule 6 (forfeiture and restoration)
- Amendment noted: Amended by S 377/1999 with effect from 1 September 1999 (noted in the extract, tied to Rule 6)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Pingat Perkhidmatan Anggota Beruniform Malaysia (The Uniformed Services Malaysia Medal) Rules 1964 are a set of administrative rules that establish a specific state medal—known as the “Uniformed Services Malaysia Medal”—and set out the eligibility, design, method of wearing, and administrative control mechanisms for awarding the medal.
In plain language, the Rules create a medal for certain members of Singapore’s uniformed services (specifically the Police Force and the Armed Forces) who were in service of the State on a particular historical date: 15 September 1963. The Rules also specify what the medal looks like, how it is to be worn, and how the government keeps an official record of recipients.
Although the medal’s name references “Malaysia,” the Rules are Singapore subsidiary legislation made in 1964. The legal effect is to formalise a commemorative/recognition award and to provide a governance framework for the medal’s administration, including the possibility of forfeiture and restoration by the President.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Citation and creation of the medal (Rules 1 and 2)
Rule 1 provides the short title: the Rules may be cited as the Pingat Perkhidmatan Anggota Beruniform Malaysia (The Uniformed Services Malaysia Medal) Rules 1964. This is a standard interpretive provision used for referencing the instrument in legal and administrative contexts.
Rule 2 is the core “granting” provision. It states that a medal known as the Pingat Perkhidmatan Beruniform Malaysia (The Uniformed Services Malaysia Medal) may be awarded to classes of members of the Police Force and Armed Forces who were in the service of the State on 15 September 1963. The eligibility is therefore anchored to (i) the employing uniformed service (Police Force and Armed Forces) and (ii) a fixed date of service (15 September 1963). The Rules do not, in the extract, spell out additional criteria such as length of service, conduct, or specific operational involvement; rather, they define eligibility through membership and service status on that date.
2. Design and wearing requirements (Rule 4)
Rule 4 is highly specific and is best understood as an official “specification” clause. It dictates the physical design of the medal and the manner in which it must be worn.
Under Rule 4(1), the medal is circular and made of bronze. It is surmounted by a design depicting the Hibiscus (Bunga Raya) with two leaves (one on each side of the flower). The obverse (front) includes a shield bearing a crescent and five stars, with a palm frond above the shield. The inscription “MAJULAH SINGAPURA” is arranged around the shield. The reverse (back) depicts the Singapore Lion in the centre, encircled by the inscription “16th SEPTEMBER 1963.” The depiction and inscriptions are within a design of two chains of Hibiscus buds, with a bud at the top between the chains.
Rule 4(2) addresses attachment and ribbon format. The medal is to be affixed to the left side of the outer garment from a ribbon that is one-and-a-half inches in width. The ribbon is vertically divided into two equal parts of red and white, as set out in the Schedule. This provision is important for uniformity and for preventing unofficial or incorrect display of the medal.
3. Administrative record-keeping (Rule 5)
Rule 5 requires that a register of the names of persons to whom the medal is awarded be kept in the office of the Prime Minister. This is a governance and evidentiary provision. It establishes where the authoritative list of recipients resides and implies that decisions about awarding, forfeiture, and restoration operate through updates to that register.
For practitioners, this kind of clause matters because it identifies the “system of record” for the medal. If a dispute arises—such as whether a person is a recipient, or whether a name has been deleted—Rule 5 points to the Prime Minister’s office register as the relevant administrative document.
4. Forfeiture and restoration (Rule 6)
Rule 6 provides the legal mechanism for removing and reinstating the medal. It is the most consequential “control” provision because it authorises adverse administrative action (forfeiture) and discretionary remedial action (restoration).
Rule 6(1) states that the President may, if he thinks fit, forfeit the medal awarded to any person, and upon forfeiture the person’s name is deleted from the register. The language “may, if he thinks fit” indicates a broad discretion. The rule does not specify grounds (for example, misconduct, conviction, or breach of discipline) within the extract. Instead, it vests the decision in the President’s judgment, with the administrative consequence being deletion from the register.
Rule 6(2) states that the President may, in his discretion, restore the medal to any person whose name has been deleted from the register. Again, the rule does not prescribe objective criteria for restoration; it leaves the matter to discretion. The practical effect is that the medal is not necessarily a permanent entitlement once awarded; it remains subject to presidential review through the register.
The extract also notes an amendment: [S 377/1999 wef 01/09/1999]. While the extract does not show the pre-amendment text, the notation indicates that Rule 6 was affected by the 1999 amendment instrument. For legal work, this means that practitioners should consult the amending legislation to confirm whether the discretion, wording, or procedural aspects were modified.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Rules are structured as a short instrument with numbered rules and a schedule. Based on the extract, the key components are:
Rule 1 (Citation) — establishes the short title.
Rule 2 (Eligibility) — defines who may be awarded the medal, by reference to service in the Police Force and Armed Forces and service status on 15 September 1963.
Rule 3 (Design reference) — links the medal’s design to the schedule and to Rule 4(1) and Part II of the Schedule.
Rule 4 (Design and wearing) — provides the detailed physical specifications and the method of affixing the medal and ribbon colours.
Rule 5 (Register) — requires a register of recipients to be kept in the Prime Minister’s office.
Rule 6 (Forfeiture and restoration) — provides presidential discretion to forfeit and restore the medal, with corresponding register updates.
The Schedule — referenced for ribbon details and design particulars (including Part II). The extract indicates that the ribbon division and certain design particulars are set out in the Schedule, but the schedule text is not reproduced in the provided excerpt.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Rules apply to members of two uniformed services: the Police Force and the Armed Forces. The eligibility is limited to those who were in the service of the State on 15 September 1963. This creates a defined class of potential recipients rather than an ongoing eligibility category for future service.
In addition, the Rules apply administratively to the Prime Minister’s office (as the custodian of the register) and to the President (as the decision-maker for forfeiture and restoration). While the President’s role is not “for the public” in the same way as recipient eligibility, it is central to the legal consequences under Rule 6.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Uniformed Services Malaysia Medal Rules are relatively short, they are legally significant because they formalise a state honour and establish a clear administrative framework for awarding and maintaining the integrity of the medal system. For practitioners, the Rules provide the legal basis for (i) eligibility determination, (ii) the official design and wearing standards, and (iii) the authoritative record of recipients.
The most practically important provision is Rule 6 (Forfeiture and restoration). It creates a discretionary power in the President to forfeit the medal and to delete the recipient’s name from the register, and to restore it later. This matters in contexts such as administrative disputes, requests for restoration, or challenges involving whether a person remains entitled to display or claim the medal. Because the Rules do not specify grounds, the decision-making is likely to be treated as a high-level discretionary act; nonetheless, the register mechanism provides an objective administrative anchor for verifying the status of a recipient.
Finally, the Rules’ emphasis on design and wearing (Rule 4) is important for enforcement and uniformity. Incorrect display—such as wrong ribbon colours, wrong placement, or unofficial replicas—can undermine the integrity of the award. While the extract does not include offences or enforcement penalties, the detailed specifications support administrative correction and verification.
Related Legislation
- S 377/1999 (amending instrument noted in the extract; effective 1 September 1999) — relevant to Rule 6 (Forfeiture and restoration)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Pingat Perkhidmatan Anggota Beruniform Malaysia (The Uniformed Services Malaysia Medal) Rules 1964 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.